Wikipedia and Inerrancy

[Ricardo]

I wrote this a few years back. R.


Nobody knows everything. Knowledge continues to grow exponentially.

We have no choice but to depend on the judgment of others. The problem is how do we choose whom to believe?

Universities and publishing houses have been in this business for some time now, with a substantial track record of successes and failures. Until fairly recently, anything that survived proof-readers and editors and got published (on paper,) had some sort of credibility. (Part of my preference for traditional Encyclopedias rather than CDs or on-line versions has to do with this largely unconscious trust of anything published.)

So now we have Wikipedia, which celebrates that ANYONE can contribute toward the definition as to what truth is.

This makes many of us VERY nervous. We don’t know who is writing the entries. They could be a bunch of charlatans for all we know. And yet, studies comparing the accuracy of both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia have found they are comparable when it comes to number of published errors. The principal difference between the two is that in Wikipedia the median time to correct errors is 2.8 minutes from the moment an erroneous entry is posted. I still would feel more comfortable with a published, paper version of the same data currently on line, but that is my bias.


In Christianity, we used to have a system of leadership which could trace its origins all the way back to Peter, -and Jesus-: leaders who were the final arbiter in any theological argument. Martin Luther could simply not leave well alone. Not only did he question Papal infallibility, but he also questioned the approved and authorized interpretations of Scripture. Luther also had the temerity to translate Scripture into German, allowing the most humble and ignorant Christians to read and interpret Scripture without benefit of clergy, the authorized interpretations and more importantly, ignoring the Sacred Traditions of THE Church.

Nothing has been the same since. Any day now (if it is not out there already,) we should see a Wikipedia-style Biblical translation project. Where ANYONE can chime in and suggest how to translate words and phrases.

Is it unreasonable today to question the sources behind Biblical lexicons and dictionaries or translations used currently? Could you or me even attempt to research a specific word and find better answers than Strong, Kittel, Webster, Young, Bauer and many professional Biblical translators?

I believe the answer is YES. Most New Testament translators before 1970 had considerably less information than can today be found on the Internet. Language is a moving target. Words change meaning over time. They also change meaning over distance. A “regular” coffee in Boston is not the same as a “regular” coffee in New York. “Regular” coffee may have meant different things to Abram in Ur, Isaiah in Judah or Paul in Corinth. (Different times, different places.)

While there is consensus among experts about how to translate most of Scripture, there are words that no longer mean what they used to. (A quick example: “fear” of God.) Consensus among experts is not as solid a platform as most of us would prefer, to declare a translation as inerrant.

Translators have strong opinions about how to translate some passages. There are passages and words, however, which have resisted all efforts at clarification.

Consider for a moment the Greek word MALAKOS (Strong 3120.) Three occurrences of this word in Scripture, in Mathew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, are translated as “soft,” the same translation as thousands of other occurrences of MALAKOS in Greek Literature of the same era.

However, MALAKOS in 1 Corinthians6:9 currently appears to be untranslatable.

We would prefer to delegate our decision to experts on the subject. But what happens when the experts do not agree? Thirty one Bible versions have come up with fourteen very different translations for MALAKOS. This is not fine tuning. “Effeminate” is not the same as “male prostitute,” “pervert,” or “homosexual.” Furthermore, there appears to be no evidence to back up any of the existing translations. Which translation of MALAKOS do we choose as the inerrant one? Based on what?

What do we know about the team of translators for this or that version of the Bible? The KJV had forty seven translators. Some specialized in Hebrew/Arameic, some specialized in Greek. Did all translators review and approve every word translated? Did they farm out different books to different translators? How many people actually reviewed each word? What did they do with questionable words or passages where there is no explanation as to why previous authors chose a specific translation?

You see, many would like to believe that TRUTH is not up for discussion, that there is at least one inerrant source of TRUTH out there. But, even among those who claim the Bible as Inerrant, there is no agreement on which canon is the one without error, or which translation from the original languages is the correct one, or which interpretation. So, claims of inerrancy depend ultimately on… on someone else’s non-inerrant judgment!

So, shouldn’t we have a council of male elders deciding what is Truth, instead of a system such as Wikipedia where the definition of Truth is open to anyone and everyone’s interpretation?

Hmm, sounds a lot like the arguments against Luther’s translation of Scripture into German. How dare he allow any Günter, Dick or Harry to read Scripture in their own language, without benefit of the official “spin” given by clergy?

We are our own priests. We are the ones who talk to God; and God speaks to us directly. This is EXTREMELY scary. It is much easier to try to prove uninterrupted Divine succession of Popes, or to hand over our authority over translations to the authority of Church Traditions.

I like Biblical paraphrases, (such as “The Living Bible,”) because no divine claim is made. It is simply someone’s opinion as to how to translate old texts. I can then allow God to guide me in the search for understanding and meaning.

When push comes to shove all translations are matters of opinion. Well, you may say, some opinions carry more weight than others... It begs the question: how many translators agreeing with each other does it take to change the title of “paraphrase” to “Translation?”

A Wikipedia-style Biblical translation effort is not beyond the realm of possibilities any more.
And it scares those among us who want to be handed THE TRUTH in one package, approved by Holy men.

WE are the ones who must judge the credibility of what we read, regardless of what others (experts or not) may say.

This is also the case for anything from the Encyclopedia Britannica, or any book, thesis or research paper. It is just that we forget. Einstein’s theories are still around -not because they are THE TRUTH.- Instead, simply, no better theories have been put forth. Yet.

The days of AUTHORITY granted on the basis of Power to publish, or Power of the State, or Power of the Church Hierarchy, or Funds to research are waning. Today, the Internet is the great equalizer. Anyone’s ideas are heard and judged on its own merits.

That is the beauty of today’s technology. That is the headache of today’s technology

[Shoes]

Ricardo Wrote:Nobody knows everything.

God does. I'm not trying to be argumentative or a jerk but God does know everything. I agree with the statement "No Person knows everything." Not sure if that was the intent of this statement.

Ricardo Wrote:We are our own priests. We are the ones who talk to God; and God speaks to us directly. This is EXTREMELY scary.

I agree with you completelly. The only thing i would add is that when God speaks to us, it had better be within the guidelines of scripture. When you get a man/ woman that "God told me to X, Y, Z" and it is in direct opposition to the Bible, that is a MAJOR red flag to me (i'd go so far as to say this is TOTALLY wrong and entering cult-dom).

Ricardo Wrote:I like Biblical paraphrases, (such as “The Living Bible,”) because no divine claim is made. It is simply someone’s opinion as to how to translate old texts. I can then allow God to guide me in the search for understanding and meaning.

Again i agree with the caveat that where God leads must not be in opposition to the scripture. The Mormons (specifically Joe Smith) opened Pandora's Box when he told the Mormons that everyone was a prophet, and everyone could recieve direct revelation from God. this lead to a whole lot of people getting some pretty messed up "revelations" from God that didn't line up with the bible, the book of Mormon or Joe's teaching.

I agree that we need to let God lead us, and we need to use the scripture as the basis for this leading.

[Apathetic or whatever]

These are interesting points that you make. Thank you for giving me food for thought.

[TomK]

Could be a YouVersion spin off. Call lifechurch.tv

[Ricardo]

“Again i agree with the caveat that where God leads must not be in opposition to the scripture.”

The thing is, Catholics would say “where God leads must not be in opposition to the Holy Church.”

Luther, in his efforts to oppose the Pope, came up with the Sola Scriptura myth, which Protestants have been repeating ever since.

Sola Scriptura simply doesn’t work. We have no choice but to depend on someone else to decide what is Scripture. Which of the five major canons is the one you prefer? It depends, pretty much where you are born. If you were born in the US, most likely you believe in a 66 book canon. How did you decide to take out the Didache? The what? Most American Christians are not even aware that the Siriac Bible has the Didache as part of the New Testament. If you were born in Latin America there is a pretty good chance your Bible has 79 books.

But we most definitely can’t depend on the church traditions, Protestants would say, they are full or errors, and are easily led astray by men.

Same with the Bibles. The fact that we have thousands of Protestant denominations, because of disagreements on how to interpret the same bible, would not seem to generate the humility among us to admit that maybe, just maybe, OUR interpretation may not be God’s own inerrant one.

It is only recently that the Protestant bibles have taken out the last line of the Lord’s Prayer (For thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, amen,) something Catholic bibles have not had for centuries.

I tell you, there is merit in closing ranks behind God’s own version, the KJV 1611… For many of us, we’d rather live with the errors we know, rather than the errors we will find out. (I almost said “better the devil we know…)

[Shoes]

Ricardo Wrote:  

Shoes Wrote:Again i agree with the caveat that where God leads must not be in opposition to the scripture.

The thing is, Catholics would say “where God leads must not be in opposition to the Holy Church.”

Luther, in his efforts to oppose the Pope, came up with the Sola Scriptura myth, which Protestants have been repeating ever since.

Sola Scriptura simply doesn’t work. We have no choice but to depend on someone else to decide what is Scripture. Which of the five major canons is the one you prefer? It depends, pretty much where you are born. If you were born in the US, most likely you believe in a 66 book canon. How did you decide to take out the Didache? The what? Most American Christians are not even aware that the Siriac Bible has the Didache as part of the New Testament. If you were born in Latin America there is a pretty good chance your Bible has 79 books.

I will admit that I have never heard of the Didache. Is its content so different from the 66 books we consider as cannon that the Didache contradicts the 66 books we use in N America? (Obviously I’m not talking about translating a Greek word to a synonymous, more current word ((i.e “Fear” in 1611 to “Reverence”)). I am speaking about the major Bible principles)

Also, I have no issue reading another version. I’d read a catholic bible (the big cumbersome Douay- Rheims : ) I think God can use any version of his word to speak to us.

Ricardo Wrote:  But we most definitely can’t depend on the church traditions, Protestants would say, they are full or errors, and are easily led astray by men.

I have a problem with church tradition, protestant or catholic when it goes against the bible. The issue is it’s mans rules, regulations and whims. When a tradition becomes part of the salvation of an eternal soul (or another important Bible principle) and it isn’t mentioned in the Bible, I say tradition isn’t part of salvation or whatever principle we are discussing.

Now some tradition is fine. Without it we would be reinventing the wheel every time we had a decision to make. If a church decides on a specific order to hold their service, cool. People don’t like change and it helps people to know what’s going on and happening next. Sunday school, nursery and church picnics aren’t in the bible, so they are traditions. Nothing wrong with them, but they also don’t oppose scriptural teaching.

[elfdream]

For everyone's information when the Catholics speak of Tradition its with a capital T. It means oral knowledge that was passed down from the apostles and we believe it was protected by the Holy Spirit in the same way the Holy Scriptures. Traditions with a little t are things like the rosary and not eating meat on Friday and the like.

I have read the Didache and I knew it was read in churches until the cannon of the Scripture was finalized but never knew it was part of a modern day Bible.

You can google it and read it online. Its not very long and it gives an interesting glimpse into the first century church.

[Ricardo]

Shoes says:
“I will admit that I have never heard of the Didache. Is its content so different from the 66 books we consider as cannon that the Didache contradicts the 66 books we use in N America? (Obviously I’m not talking about translating a Greek word to a synonymous, more current word ((i.e “Fear” in 1611 to “Reverence”)). I am speaking about the major Bible principles)”

OK, I understand we are a bunch of believers who are, for the most part, only one step removed from our previous belief in KJVO-1611.

Take a hard look at the NA27: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

Instead of believing in Erasmus’ Textus Receptus plus a few other manuscripts to complete the holes in the original TR, are we now trying to declare that GOD’s word is best represented by NA28?

There are VERY good reasons why we are on version 28 right now.

How would you feel if you found out that a specific entry in Wikipedia on any subject has been edited and corrected 28 times?

Is this latest version the one we should declare as inerrant? Or do we wait for two or three versions from now?

We are not dealing here with differing opinions on how to TRANSLATE a specific word. We are dealing here with the words themselves.

“well, as long as they don’t affect any major Bible principles.”

Helloo! For Protestants, the inerrancy and supremacy of the Bible, above Church, tradition and anything else is more than “major.”

It is foundational. Fundamental.

“But if we can’t believe in the Bible, then what can we believe in?

For years now I’ve been wondering if Romans 1-2, which has been hijacked by so many to attack homosexuality isn’t really describing the process of converting a specific book into an idol, about our Bibliolatry. “Lord, I thank you because I have YOUR WORD in my hands, and not like those “xyz” (Insert Catholics, Orthodox, Siriacs, Coptics, Ethiopians, etc) who have spurious versions of your inerrant 66-book bible.”

The fastest rate of growth for the church of the followers of Christ, happened during the centuries when there was not an authorized and vetted New Testament. As soon as the canon was written in stone, sort of, the growth of the church started slowing. Hmm.

If we did not have the written word, we would have to depend exclusively on personal testimonies. I believe in God not because of what someone has told me, or what I have read, but because of what God has put in my own heart. The love I share is not mine, but comes from Him.

“Yeah, but then, how do we establish some quality control? Any Tom, Dick or Harry could believe just about anything, and we would only be able to judge them by their fruits…”

What a concept!

Didache 1:2 "Now the path of life is this -- first, thou shalt love the God who made thee, thy neighbour as thyself, and all things that thou wouldest not should be done unto thee, do not thou unto another."

[chris1000bc]

(04-14-2011 04:49 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  The fastest rate of growth for the church of the followers of Christ, happened during the centuries when there was not an authorized and vetted New Testament. As soon as the canon was written in stone, sort of, the growth of the church started slowing. Hmm.

Are you seriously trying to promote the idea that the reason the early church grew so quickly was that they did not have an established canon of Scripture? And that the establishment of the canon slowed church growth?

I think you are committing the logical fallacy of false cause.

Edit: A description of the "false cause" fallacy is also available from wikipedia.

[Ricardo]

"False causee fallacy"

Yes, you are probably right. Probably I can't claim either that Christianity grew the fastest when believers were being fed to the lions...

But what I am saying is that apparent adherence to Biblical Orthodoxy is highly overrated.